On Nov 12, 2007 10:42 AM, Daniel Elstner <daniel.kitta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > In fact, I wonder if it's actually valid to demand that no charges may > be claimed for distribution by third parties -- not even for the media. > I don't think it's even possible to avoid that "money changes hands" at > least indirectly. I'm sure it's valid -- without permission they have no rights at all to distribute. It's just not nice, ironically. > > I'd ask in #launchpad (on irc.freenode.net) and/or ask on launchpad > > answers[2], to see if one of the launchpad team (who are good with > > licenses) can give you a definite answer. > > As a law layperson, I'd be interested to hear how this went. I just brought it up and discussion was personally informative: 1) Canonical is taking the approach that PPAs are free only for a small set of open licenses. Presumably they aim to charge for closed software. 2) The no money clause violates the redistribution requirements [1] 3) Debian doesn't like CC licenses, but might be okay with GPL'ing textures, images and models the game needs. So basically, I have this package ready for play, and until someone convinces the author the license is causing more harm than good, you'll have to download and compile it yourself. Justin Dugger [1]http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing > --Daniel
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)